Kingdom of Heaven

Oh My God!

Just seen the Directors Cut of this. Totally incredible. Obviously it's not entirely historically accurate but so what, it's probably the only modern good film potraying the crusades.

The only thing I have a problem with is Orlando Bloom, who looks more like a college kid on a backpacking trip as oppossed to a hardened and noble knight.

But again, all the other actors are great especially Jeremy Irons as Tiberius and Ghassan Massoud as Saladin.

The battles are insanely bloody, the cinematography is stunning, the acting is great and believable and the soundtrack is amazing.



See this film!

I liked it too. I disagree about Orlando Bloom, he fit the part well and looked "rugged" enough. He was too quiet and reserved though. Crusaders are supposed to be zealous, he hardly said anything. Sword fight battle scenes

Liam Neeson should have portrayed Balian and the dumb love story deleted and replaced by Balian trying to convince the princess not to marry Guy as he was not fit to be a king.

It would've been more accurate and better acted

I thought the movie was pretty bad. I only saw part of it (about 3/4), but other than being about the Crusades, it was pretty bad. Orlando is awful (I was expecting Captain Jack Sparrow or Aragorn to pop out any minute) as a knight, the story is very unhistorical, and the whole feel of the movie is just kinda silly. I mean, the story is supposed to be about Catholics, but every single clergyman is either opposed to "organized religion" (which would get your head taken off back then) or utterly corrupt, and the people hardly follow Catholicism. The knights (even the king) won't confess to the priest when they are about to die (pretty unrealistic), Balain is basically an atheist wearing a cross on his chest (which would be unthinkable back then), and he says that the holy places in Jerusalem aren't important (what?!?!? This would get him burned at the stake for heresy probably). The whole mood of the movie is very unhistorical for those reasons IMO. I know Hollywood isn't very friendly to Catholicism (and religion in general), but common, its about the Crusades!

Plus, the geography looks nothing like the Middle East (it was filmed in Morocco IIRC, but still...). The cities and castles look nothing like they do in real life (I realize some have been rebuilt, but they still look extremely different). Oh, and the last siege at Jerusalem is quite silly how the defenders use silly tactics to beat back the Muslims. They use balistas to pull down siege towers? Come on...

Oh, and the Muslims manage to build a thousand trebuchets in a few days that shoot fire balls into the city instead of trying to break down the walls with them

Liam Neeson should have portrayed Balian and the dumb love story deleted and replaced by Balian trying to convince the princess not to marry Guy as he was not fit to be a king.

It would've been more accurate and better acted

I agree, Neeson would have made a much better Balian (Balian, Balain, or w/e his name is.)

Originally Posted by CtrlAltDe1337

I thought the movie was pretty bad. I only saw part of it (about 3/4), but other than being about the Crusades, it was pretty bad. Orlando is awful (I was expecting Captain Jack Sparrow or Aragorn to pop out any minute) as a knight, the story is very unhistorical, and the whole feel of the movie is just kinda silly. I mean, the story is supposed to be about Catholics, but every single clergyman is either opposed to "organized religion" (which would get your head taken off back then) or utterly corrupt, and the people hardly follow Catholicism. The knights (even the king) won't confess to the priest when they are about to die (pretty unrealistic), Balain is basically an atheist wearing a cross on his chest (which would be unthinkable back then), and he says that the holy places in Jerusalem aren't important (what?!?!? This would get him burned at the stake for heresy probably). The whole mood of the movie is very unhistorical for those reasons IMO. I know Hollywood isn't very friendly to Catholicism (and religion in general), but common, its about the Crusades!

Plus, the geography looks nothing like the Middle East (it was filmed in Morocco IIRC, but still...). The cities and castles look nothing like they do in real life (I realize some have been rebuilt, but they still look extremely different). Oh, and the last siege at Jerusalem is quite silly how the defenders use silly tactics to beat back the Muslims. They use balistas to pull down siege towers? Come on...

Oh, and the Muslims manage to build a thousand trebuchets in a few days that shoot fire balls into the city instead of trying to break down the walls with them


I agree, Neeson would have made a much better Balian (Balian, Balain, or w/e his name is.)

Well historical inaccuracies aside, I thought it was a good movie. Most audiences wouldn't notice or even care about the inaccuracies listed. The story was well told, even if it wasn't completely original. Again, I thought Bloom was decent.

You're right about the "corrupt" portrayal of the Christians. But the movie sort of balanced it out since Saladin's right-hand man was also an overzealous and fanatical Muslim. And about the siege, well that's how it went down in real life more or less so what did you expect?

@Ctrla: agree in almost every point. but still the movie was nice imo. (the battle scenes did the most part)

The battles and stuff seemed pretty good. The only thing that stopped it from being a good movie (and it's a pretty big thing) was the acting. It was just so horrible. Every single lined seemed so forced and cheesy, I wanted to laugh whenever anyone opened their mouth to speak.

Though props to Ed Norton, he did a great job.

Originally Posted by therussian

The battles and stuff seemed pretty good. The only thing that stopped it from being a good movie (and it's a pretty big thing) was the acting. It was just so horrible. Every single lined seemed so forced and cheesy, I wanted to laugh whenever anyone opened their mouth to speak.

Though props to Ed Norton, he did a great job.

No way! The only actors who fall short are Eva Green and Orlando Bloom who were probably only put in to attract a bigger audience. Virtually every other actor from major to minor was excellent.

As for the criticisms furthur up the page. Well as for locations, Ridley Scott exaggerrated the size and scope of things to be more impressive like he did with Rome for Gladiator. I have no problem with that. It was somewhat silly potraying where Jesus died as a giant mountain in the middle of Jerusalem though.

As for the religious parts. I guess it has been imbued with some 20th/21st century mentality but you assert that absolutley anyone who had a question of faith would be killed back then. I don't believe that. No one says they are an atheist in the film they just question whether what they are fighting for is just and morally right and whether what they do is something Jesus would have condoned. (ie; no)

And you claim the movie is all about Catholics? Hmm no, it was more of a discussion on religious conflict, political struggle in the middle east, add in a bit of romance and tie it together with some moral ideas regarding religious intolerance that are pertinent in todays world and you've got a big scope of topics. Certainly greater than just being about catholics. Perhaps ypou should watch the whole movie!

Originally Posted by Duke

No way! The only actors who fall short are Eva Green and Orlando Bloom who were probably only put in to attract a bigger audience. Virtually every other actor from major to minor was excellent.

Other than those two, the others are decent. I thought Baldwin IV (even though he does wear an un-historical mask, it doesn't look that bad), Tiberias (or Tiberius?), and Saladin were quite good.

As for the religious parts. I guess it has been imbued with some 20th/21st century mentality but you assert that absolutley anyone who had a question of faith would be killed back then. I don't believe that. No one says they are an atheist in the film they just question whether what they are fighting for is just and morally right and whether what they do is something Jesus would have condoned. (ie; no)

If you had come out and openly said that you did not believe in the Church, you would have probably been killed. Balian seems to claim that the Bible is a bunch of hogwash when he throws rocks at a bush to make it catch fire, then says "there's your Moses." That may appeal to modern Hollywood, but it ruins the historical feel for me.

And you claim the movie is all about Catholics? Hmm no, it was more of a discussion on religious conflict, political struggle in the middle east, add in a bit of romance and tie it together with some moral ideas regarding religious intolerance that are pertinent in todays world and you've got a big scope of topics. Certainly greater than just being about catholics. Perhaps ypou should watch the whole movie!

I mean the main characters are Catholic, and they all view the faith in a negative light (those who speak about it anyways). Tiberius seems to be the only pious character in the whole film. I'm not saying we should have a bunch of Jesus-loving, straight-laced knights in shining (mail?) armor, as many were surely after their own gain more than anything, but there needs to be some balance. Even those who didn't care a thing for God would have still carried up an outward show at the very least. It just has too much of a modern feel imo.

Oh, and also Saladin seems a bit too tolerant to Christians. I know he wasn't a bloodthirsty barbarian, but he sets up a cross (that had fallen over) at the end of the film. Perhaps an attractive idea, but I doubt he would have really done that. He was a devout Muslim, after all, who believes that God has no son.

Originally Posted by CtrlAltDe1337

If you had come out and openly said that you did not believe in the Church, you would have probably been killed.

A lot of Medieval people, usually nobles or the soldiery, were known to blaspheme just for the hell of it/to mess with the Church clergy. I'm afraid what killed notable blasphemers like the Plantagenets were themselves, rather than the Church.

Originally Posted by CtrlAltDe1337

Balian seems to claim that the Bible is a bunch of hogwash when he throws rocks at a bush to make it catch fire, then says "there's your Moses." That may appeal to modern Hollywood, but it ruins the historical feel for me.

This is a man who spent his life harassed by his half-brother priest, raised a fatherless bastard orphan, campaigned in war only for the greed of his social betters, lost his child at birth, lost his wife when she took her life in despair, meets a total stranger claiming to be his biological father and a rich baron while he lived as a lowly blacksmith, has to contend with the belief that as a suicide his wife is doomed to hell, told by his wormy brother that he cut her head off in spite/jest as he wore a precious gift he stole from her dead body, murders said brother, burns his home down, and escapes hoping to reach Jerusalem with his father and see if pilgrimage can absolve his and his wife's sins.

In less than a day, his father and others are attacked, wounded, and nearly wiped out in a chaotic fight started over his custody because of his crime. He goes on to Sicily, meets for the first time another Jerusalem noble as detestable as one can be and then sees actual Muslims, whom he can't help but notice pray just like Christians do. His father dies, he boards ship and has everybody around him die in a storm.


And then, after finally reaching Jerusalem, he goes to do what he came to do and pray. Which does nothing for him or his troubled soul.

Even if we forget all the other things that happen once he reaches his Ibelin manor house, I think the unrealistic thing to do is have him be of unshakable faith after all that.

Originally Posted by CtrlAltDe1337

I mean the main characters are Catholic, and they all view the faith in a negative light (those who speak about it anyways). Tiberius seems to be the only pious character in the whole film. I'm not saying we should have a bunch of Jesus-loving, straight-laced knights in shining (mail?) armor, as many were surely after their own gain more than anything, but there needs to be some balance. Even those who didn't care a thing for God would have still carried up an outward show at the very least. It just has too much of a modern feel imo.

The only atheist views are said by Balian, which after all the crap above is overdue honestly.

The rest of the cast, including his father and the Hospitaller, are still very religious. The rest had character flaws that functioned with or without religion.

Originally Posted by CtrlAltDe1337

Oh, and also Saladin seems a bit too tolerant to Christians. I know he wasn't a bloodthirsty barbarian, but he sets up a cross (that had fallen over) at the end of the film. Perhaps an attractive idea, but I doubt he would have really done that. He was a devout Muslim, after all, who believes that God has no son.

He was still known to be magnanimous and duly respectful. Saladin did enough de-Christianize Jerusalem in the movie during the scene where he prays in a converted Church. The scene with the cross was a personal moment, not an arbitrary 'I think Christianity is pretty cool' moment. He walks through a royal palace that's in disarray, takes care to walk around the King's tomb out of respect, and when he enters the Office of the Marshall he places the cross back on the table.

The important part isn't that he picked up a cross (he could have simply not converted the church to win over Christians), but that he picked up a symbol of the old Jerusalem and the King he respected in the office of the only high official that tried to uphold the old King's policies.

Originally Posted by Sher Khan

A lot of Medieval people, usually nobles or the soldiery, were known to blaspheme just for the hell of it/to mess with the Church clergy. I'm afraid what killed notable blasphemers like the Plantagenets were themselves, rather than the Church.

I'd like to hear more about those "blasphemers" Plantagenets. If you don't mind of course...

Originally Posted by Sher Khan

This is a man who spent his life harassed by his half-brother priest, raised a fatherless bastard orphan, campaigned in war only for the greed of his social betters, lost his child at birth, lost his wife when she took her life in despair, meets a total stranger claiming to be his biological father and a rich baron while he lived as a lowly blacksmith, has to contend with the belief that as a suicide his wife is doomed to hell, told by his wormy brother that he cut her head off in spite/jest as he wore a precious gift he stole from her dead body, murders said brother, burns his home down, and escapes hoping to reach Jerusalem with his father and see if pilgrimage can absolve his and his wife's sins.

You do realize that this Cinderella story is just a Hollywood Cinderella story, right? And has nothing to do with real Ballian of Ibelin.
It's so interesting how people of today dismiss the piety of the X-XV centuries. And judge them by today's standards.

Originally Posted by Sher Khan

The rest of the cast, including his father and the Hospitaller, are still very religious.

Which is, most probably, way more accurate depiction of a Medieval man.

The Kingdom of Heaven is a good film, most likely not historically accurate, but that's what you can expect from films...

Oh, and awesome avatar too!

It was alright, looked liked Ridly Scott wanted to replicate the sucess of Gladiator but came off very short of the mark. Best performances came from Irons, Norton and Neeson. Thought the score was pretty damn awesome though.

my favourite movie it is

I found it dull.

It was a good movie, but the way they shoved "Christianity=bad and corrupt" down your throat when you watch it left a bad taste in my mouth. other then that and Orlando Bloom the movie was very good. I like Baldwin's and Saladin's portrayels. My favorite scene would have to be when Baldwin beats Reynald!

Originally Posted by Nikos

It was a good movie, but the way they shoved "Christianity=bad and corrupt" down your throat when you watch it left a bad taste in my mouth. other then that and Orlando Bloom the movie was very good. I like Baldwin's and Saladin's portrayels. My favorite scene would have to be when Baldwin beats Reynald!

It's "organized religion=bad and corrupt".

I could have lived with the overly moralizing religious fundamentalists are dangerous crap, but it was unnecessary to portray the Bishop of Jerusalem as a greedy incompetent man. If anything in reality that man was the one person who really cared about the inhabitants as he was responsible for buying the freedom of thousands after the siege (at least that's what's been told to me)

I thought the movie was dull overall. A very bland script with excellent visuals. That kind of story is so recycled over a thousand times, it just gets old. They could have found someone else to focus on that was more interesting and personal.